Toward a Missiology of Transformation (Inglês)

Charles Van Engen, Ph.D.

Introduction

When my son, Andrew, was four and five years old, he had several toys called “transformers.” They were large plastic figures of a soldier or a samurai warrior. When one began turning the various components around and re-fashioning the object, it would turn out to be a jet airplane or an armored vehicle: it would “transform.” It was still the same toy, but its various shapes were quite different. When I think of mission today I think of my son’s transformers. Mission praxis and missiological analysis in the Twenty-first Century must undergo a similar radical transformation. It needs to be always the same mission, God’s mission, missio Dei. Yet we are today in a very different mission situation than we were, say, 100 years ago.

My thesis is that an evangelical missiology of transformation

(1) builds on classical concepts of mission developed over the last 100 years;

(2) overcomes the dichotomies between evangelism and social action that arose 50 years ago; and

(3) re-creates itself in a trinitarian praxis of mission appropriate to the global/local challenges, and opportunities of church and world in this new century.

Historical Location: Setting the Stage

For us to understand where we are going in the future in articulating a missiology of TRANSFORMATION, it is important to remind ourselves of our past. Let me briefly summarize where we have been in our missiological reflection 100 years ago and 50 years ago. Such a summary may offer us lenses with which to see the future. In Post-Capitalist Society, Peter Drucker said this:

Every few hundred years in (human) history there occurs a sharp transformation. We cross what… I have called a “divide.” Within a few short decades, (a) society rearranges itself — its worldview, its basic values; its social and political structures; its arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world. And the people born then cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. We are currently living through just such a transformation.” (1993:1)

A hundred years ago global mission was Western mission, a mostly one-way street from the West and North to everywhere else on the globe. At that time the dominant perspectives had to do with how Western missions could cooperate among themselves, how pioneer areas and peoples could be reached for the first time with the gospel, and how the fledgling churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America could be helped to become self-governing, self-propagating and self-supporting.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century there was great optimism about Western culture of modernity and Western civilization. It was assumed that other religions would soon decrease in influence or die out altogether. Mission was predominantly directed to rural areas and medicine, education and agriculture were often seen as means to the evangelization of those who were not yet Christians.

Missions activities were carried out predominantly by denominational mission organizations, with some notable exceptions like the China Inland Mission, the London Missionary Society, the Bible Societies, and others. There was a common understanding of the Bible, and folks shared a common definition of mission, articulated and popularized by the Student Volunteer Movement’s (SVM) watchword, “The evangelization of the world in this generation.”

In a video lecture series in 1984 on “How My Mind has Changed about Mission,” Stephen Neill observed that at the time of the great mission congress of Edinburgh, 1910, there were “nine grounds for sober optimism”. I summarize them below.

1. The geographical exploration of the planet was nearly complete.

2. There was increased safety of human life in the world – wars had ceased.

3. The health of missionaries was much better.

4. Conduits had been won to every major religion, everywhere; every social system had yielded some converts.

5. Major languages had been learned.

6. The Bible was available in the most widely spoken languages.

7. The churches themselves had become engaged in missionary work overseas.

8. The gigantic Student Christian Movement was in place.

9. Third-World churches were already becoming missionary churches in their own right.

Neill concluded that lecture by observing that there were “three great changes of which we were unaware” in mission at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.

a. That many lands would soon be closed to foreign missionary endeavor.

b. That there would be a recovery and rise of the great non-Christian religions.

c. That the decline of the church would be mainly in the West, and in the most firmly established churches.

Yet through it all, in the midst of all the changes, Neill affirmed that, “The aim of all our preaching is that our hearers get a clear picture of Jesus Christ. We really want people to become Christians. If we have seen Christ and life in Him, we desire that all should see Him — this is mission.” (Neil 1984, end of video, Part I)

A century ago Christian missions generally shared a consensus around a classical view of mission that did not split evangelism and social action. Missiologists generally saw the Gospel as impacting all of life. They had a common definition of mission, articulated and popularized by the watchword of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM): “The evangelization of the world in this generation.” That “watchword” was later used by John R. Mott as the title of his most famous book and was also adopted as the motto of the great World Missionary Conference of Edinburgh, 1910. The SVM’s watchword assumed a somewhat wholistic view of mission, even though we must recognize that such a view was too often encased in a Euro-centric goal of Christianization and civilization. Yet even that goal assumed a conversion component.

That view of mission also involved a great deal of tension. We must recognize that the Venn-Anderson 3-self formula that dominated the scene was heavily ecclesiocentric (mostly introverted and rather static), and lacked a commitment to transform the culture or change the political and socio-economic realities of the day.[1] The emphasis on social service of a hundred years ago in terms of agriculture, medicine and education were not seen as activities over-against verbal proclamation and personal faith conversion. They were seen as integral aspects of proclamation of a Gospel that called for conversion. After the Second World War this changed in North American thinking about mission and a great gulf was created between those who advocated socio-economic and political change over against those who affirmed verbal proclamation as being central to mission.

Mid-century Reactions: Overcoming Dichotomies

Then came the world wars, the French, Mexican, Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions, the Korean War, the birth of the World Council of Churches, and the search to reconstruct Europe and Japan among other events. The globe began to shrink due to the rise of airplane travel, radio, telephones, and television. And the churches in Asia, Africa and Latin America began to grow, mature, and rise in global influence. The perspectives of mission changed radically, producing profound dichotomies.

Fifty years ago new nations arose around the globe. The “moratorium” debate[2] brought to the foreground of mission consciousness the development, growth and mission role of those who were first called “younger” and later “national” churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America.[3] Some Western Protestant churches and missions were talking about the end of the so-called “missionary era,” and advocating it be replaced by an “ecumenical era” of church-to-church cooperation and the global sharing of resources.[4] Global ecumenicity became a major agenda for some, coupled with a strong emphasis on socio-political changes in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Reacting to this direction in ecumenical mission theology, the Evangelical Protestants formed new coalitions to emphasize verbal proclamation and personal conversion over-against socio-political, economic and humanitarian goals in mission. Seemingly, Evangelical Protestants were no longer bothered by an “Uneasy Conscience” (Carl Henry: 1947), with regard to the social dimensions of the Gospel. New cooperative ventures for world evangelization arose in Wheaton, 1966 and Berlin, 1966 that eventuated in the Church Growth Movement, the Lausanne Movement, the AD2000 Movement and other Western-based initiatives that saw mission in more traditional terms of finding missiologically effective means whereby “men and women may become disciples of Jesus Christ and responsible members of Christ’s Church” (Donald McGavran: 1970:35; C. Peter Wagner 1989:16).[5]

We might summarize the mission perspective of the 1950’s and 1960’s as follows.

1. National churches began to mature throughout Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania.

2. New nations were born, particularly throughout Africa, and a strong anti-colonial critique of mission arose among older churches.

3. Sodality faith missions increased in number and significance, particularly in North America.

4. The moratorium debate grew.

5. A two-way traffic of conversation regarding world mission arose with an increasingly strident critique coming from the younger national churches.

6. The Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) met in Mexico City in 1962, with the theme: “Mission in Six Continents”.

7. The Vatican Council II transformed the Roman Catholic Church.

8. The Protestant split between evangelism and social action worsened.

9. Evangelical/Ecumenical debates arose and became more heated, paralleling two different readings of the Bible (a traditional view and a more socio-politically- and economically-oriented view).[6]

10. A strong Ecumenical Movement took shape in the WCC.

11. Global Evangelical coalitions and cooperative structures were created — most notably the Lausanne Movement

12. Two-Thirds World theologians began to raise their voices offering new perspectives on the mission of the church.

After World War II there was a rather severe split between differing views of Christian mission. Heavily impacted by a guilty conscience about the Holocaust and the Third Reich, and following the lead of J. C. Hoekendijk, the World Council of Churches folks stressed a theology of relevance with heavy socio-political agendas, over-against personal faith.

In reaction to that, and especially disillusioned by the integration of the IMC into the WCC,[7] evangelically-minded folks in Europe and North America stressed verbal proclamation that would seek personal conversion to Jesus Christ, over-against socio-political agendas (see C. Van Engen: 1996: 128-136). The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. and liberation theology movements in Latin America, the Philippines, South Korea, India and elsewhere simply exacerbated the split. Donald McGavran’s writings, as polemical as they were, though pointing in the right direction, too often encouraged a widening of the gap between these opposing views of mission.

Forty years later, we find ourselves still challenged by Harold Lindsell’s words offered in 1962.

It is regrettable that fifty years after Edinburgh (1910) there cannot be a world congress for mission that transcends some of the unimportant differences dividing those of similar missionary aims… Perhaps the faith missions may be able to enlarge this vision and provide a creative and dynamic leadership for a new age of missionary advance” (Lindsell 1962:230).

Alas, it would seem that Evangelical sodality missions have not yet met this challenge.

The historical development of theology of mission I have outlined above should give Evangelicals pause in the way we use certain phrases. For example, “The Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World” was not the creation of the Lausanne movement at the Lausanne II meeting in Manila in 1989. It was first used by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches meeting in Rolle, Switzerland in 1951.[8]

“Mission on Six Continents” or some such phraseology that emphasizes the multiple directions of global mission from everywhere to everywhere was first used at the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism gathering in Mexico City in 1963. (See R.K. Orchard, Witness in Six Continents 1964.)

The concept of missio Dei that appears to be used with regularity among Evangelicals today was first articulated by Karl Barth in 1932[9] and, following Barth, by Karl Hartenstein in 1952. It was associated with a trinitarian view of mission at the IMC conference in Willingen, 1952. The concept was popularized by Georg Vicedom in 1958, became rather common currency in the ecumenical movement after Mexico City, 1963 (see Henry Van Dusen 1961; Georg Vicedom 1965). It was used as the conceptual foundation for the WCC and NCC discussion about “the missionary structures of the congregation” in 1963 (cf. Colin Williams 1963, 1964 and World Council of Churches 1968). In conciliar theology of mission the ship of missio Dei was eventually loaded with so much baggage it nearly sank.[10]

As I sought to demonstrate in Mission on the Way, when Church and Mission are confused and fused, and when the missio Dei is made to stand for any and all activities that the church may want to carry out in the world — then Stephen Neill’s dictum seems to prove out: “When everything is mission, nothing is mission.”[11] In the World Council of Churches the term eventually referred to a change of order in the concept of mission. The classical mission perspective begins with God who works primarily through the Church to reach and transform the world (God-Church-world). But J.C. Hoekendijk’s deep pessimism about the church motivated him to suggest in The Church Inside Out (1966) that a new order was called for, an order that became an essential part of the WCC’s understanding of missio Dei after its Fourth Assembly in Uppsala in 1968. After 1968, following Hoekendijk’s lead, missio Dei was used in WCC circles to emphasize that God was at work in the world and the best the church could do was to join the movements of what God was doing in the world (God-world-church). This change of order had profound and far-reaching effect on the mission theology of the folks associated with the World Council of Churches. Given the three examples summarized above, I believe Evangelical missiologists must be very careful to articulate clearly what they mean — and what they don’t mean — by using such terms.

I don’t believe anyone was really satisfied with the dichotomy I have outlined above. The 1970’s and 1980’s involved multiple attempts to narrow the gap between social action and verbal evangelism. The Lausanne Movement birthed a number of consultations, papers, and gatherings seeking to re-think the matter of the “priority of evangelism” as it had been articulated in the Lausanne Covenant. In the 1970’s Arthur Glasser, though still using the language of the “evangelistic mandate” and the “cultural mandate,” began to draw from the works of Oscar Cullmann (1951), Hermann Ridderbos (1962) and George Ladd (1974) to develop the notion of the Kingdom of God as a way of bringing evangelism and social action closer together. There is today a very substantial global consensus around the Kingdom-of-God theme as a way of building a more wholistic view of mission (see, e.g., C. Van Engen 1991: 101-118). This motif has been prominent in the theology of mission of Rene Padilla and his associates in the Latin American Theological Fraternity (LATF). Drawing from the Kingdom-of-God theme they have developed the idea of “integral mission” as a conceptual framework that might bridge the gap between verbal proclamation and social action.[12]

The Evangelical Association of Third-World Theologians (EATWOT) wrestled with the problem at the early stages of their conversations.[13] Members of the Asia Theological Association also sought to articulate a more wholistic understanding of mission that would bridge the old dichotomies, as evidenced in the writings of, for example, Ken Gnanakan (1989, 1992). In the World Council there arose a greater interest in matters of spirituality and spiritual formation. And Latin American Liberation Theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez began to explore matters of spirituality and spiritual formation as integral to liberation.

So in the 1980’s and 1990’s we see Evangelical perspectives of mission beginning to be interested in a “wholistic” approach to mission. I believe an impetus for this may have been the fact that the predominantly North American-based sodality mission agencies, active for more than 50 years, now have second- and third-generation converts and maturing churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America. These converts, fruit of the early evangelization of these Western Evangelical mission sodalities, have begun to search for ways in which the Gospel they accepted may impact the socio-economic, cultural and political realities in which they find themselves. These new generations of converts are now living in circumstances of oppression, persecution, disease, hunger, and abject poverty. And they are beginning to ask their brothers and sisters in the West what should be the impact of the Gospel upon the reality they are now experiencing.

With the decline of the church in the West, and the center of gravity shifting so that two-thirds of all world Christianity is now in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania, the Church of Jesus Christ is increasingly a church of the poor and oppressed. So at the beginning of this new century, Christians around the globe suffer all the same oppression, want, and need as the non-Christians in their contexts in the so-called two-thirds world. David Barrett signaled this development already in an article published in the October, 1983, issue of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, “Silver and Gold Have I None: Church of the Poor and Church of the Rich?” (7:4, Oct 1983, 146-151).

Thus the global “Enquiry” movement that Luis Bush has spearheaded is very important. It has the potential of spawning a re-conceptualization of the nature of mission that flows from the fountainhead of the majority church in the majority world, articulated by majority Christians spread now on all six continents. One might say that for the first time since Constantine, over 1600 years ago, the world church has the potential of constructing its understanding of mission with the building blocks drawn from the experience, life, vitality, and vision of churches and missions in the south and east of the globe as well as the north and the west. All this leads to a desire to re-think and re-conceptualize the nature of mission at the beginning of this new century.

The Present Situation: Recovering Believability

When I was small, growing up in San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, in southern Mexico, the word “transformer” referred to those large round containers hanging on electrical poles that transformed high-voltage electricity into a form usable in a domestic home. With some regularity they would blow up, leaving us all in the dark. The genius of those transformers was that they converted the energy from the high-tension power lines — energy that was not useful and was in fact harmful for our homes — and transformed it into voltage, wattage, and cycles that were appropriate for use in our homes. It adapted the electricity to the context of our homes.

At the beginning of this new century, I believe we are in just such a situation in our re-conceptualization of global/local mission of the Church. With two-thirds of world Christianity located now in the South and East, I believe that one of the most significant issues of global/local mission on, from, and to six continents in today’s world will involve the believability of the Church and its mission. From the perspective of those who are not yet Christians, amidst the marketplace of competing religious affiliations, in a global climate of profound spiritual hunger and curiosity, is the Church and its mission believable? It would appear that earlier attempts to articulate a relevant theology of mission have fallen short.

:: The 3-self formula is not good enough: it is too ecclesiocentric and introverted. It looks at the church through a predominantly institutional lens and is easily blinded to the issues facing those living in the contexts outside the church.

:: The “priority of evangelism” language is not contextually appropriate enough for most situations. It seems more concerned with forming a-priori propositionally-framed definitions of evangelism than it is to respond to the needs, aspirations, concerns and dreams of the persons in the surrounding context who yet do not know Jesus Christ. The balance of word and deed in our evangelism should be receptor-oriented and contextually-informed.

:: The Kingdom-of-God language is helpful, but has taken on a host of different meanings and forms in actual practice — and it seems to be too easily narrowed to predominantly vertical perceptions of the Gospel, with a loss of the horizontal issues at hand. I am beginning to see that, to be true to the Bible’s picture of God and God’s mission, I must permeate the Kingdom language with language about relationship, about covenant, about love of God and neighbor. Though such a framework may be assumed by those who speak about the “Kingdom of God,” it is not always apparent nor often emphasized.

:: As mentioned in the discussion above, the missio Dei language, though potentially useful, needs major clarification today because of the multiple, confusing, and sometimes-contradictory baggage the term carries. How are we to distinguish that which is part of the missio Dei and that which is not? We must be careful not to make everything mission — and lose mission in the process.[14]

The language of “wholistic mission” or “incarnational mission” may also have something to offer, but at times these terms seem to draw from perspectives that continue to labor with a dichotomy between mission as verbal and personal proclamation and mission that seeks socio-cultural and structural change. At other times “incarnational mission” seems so culture-affirming that the prophetic scandal of the cross and the challenge of the Gospel to transform all of life may be eclipsed by the desire to identify with the receptors.

All-in-all, it is as if we as Evangelicals have begun to realize that if mission were looked at as a coin, we must take seriously both the “heads” and the “tails” side of the coin. But we seem to continue our quest to keep the “heads” and “tails” separate-yet-together, rather than recognize that the coin, for example, is a “quarter.” I would suggest that a missiology of TRANSFORMATION might help us to speak of mission as the “quarter” rather than as “heads” and “tails.”

David Bosch gave his magnum opus the title, “Transforming Mission.” And in doing so, he meant to offer a play on three meanings

In the New Testament and over time, the concept of mission was transformed in such a way that a variety of “paradigms” of self-understanding took shape related to the Church’s conceptualization of mission.

Over time, the activities of mission transform the Church as it participates in God’s mission.

3. Bosch’s readers — and the Church at large — need to allow the Holy Spirit to transform their idea of mission to include at least the thirteen “elements of an emerging ecumenical mission paradigm” that Bosch outlines in the last chapter of his book.

I would suggest that Bosch’s use of the concept of “transformation” did not go far enough. In Romans 12:2, the Apostle Paul admonishes his hearers, “Do not be conformed to this world but be TRANSFORMED by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (NIV) Paul here uses the Greek form, μεταμορφοισθε. He calls for metamorphosis![15] A missiology of metamorphosis would entail the kind of mission that we see in the transformation of the woman of Sychar — and of the village of Sychar — in John 4.

Metamorphosis is the word used to describe the phenomenal transformation that happens when a chrysalis becomes a butterfly! I believe a biblical missiology of transformation envisions just such a change in persons, social structures and nations of our world because of the Gospel of the Kingdom and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Such a missiology of metamorphosis would involve the kind of radical change we see in Paul after meeting Jesus on the Damascus road. This is God’s mission that seeks to “rescue (people) from the dominion of darkness and (bring them) into the kingdom of the Son (God) loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Col. 1:13-14 NIV). This is such a profound, all-pervasive transformation that Paul would end up saying, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20 NIV)

This is a missiology that seeks to turn the world upside down. Because the Church’s mission is to participate in Jesus’ mission — and Jesus’ mission sets the parameters of the Church’s mission, the Christian Church-in-mission intends to “preach good news to the poor… to proclaim freedom from the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Lk 4:18-19 NIV) At the end of a chapter discussing “The goal and purpose of mission,” Johannes Verkuyl pointed to a missiology of metamorphosis by emphasizing “the Kingdom of God as the Goal of the Missio Dei” Here are some excerpts of his thought.

The kingdom to which the Bible testifies involves a proclamation and a realization of a total salvation, on which covers the whole range of human needs and destroys every pocket of evil and grief affecting [hu]mankind. Kingdom in the New Testament has a breadth and a scope which is unsurpassed; it embraces heaven as well as earth, world history as well as the whole cosmos.

The kingdom of God is that new order of affairs begun in Christ which, when finally completed by him, will involve a proper restoration not only of [hu]man’s relationship to God but also of those between sexes, generations, races, and even between [humans] and nature…

When we inquire into the practical consequences of viewing mission from the perspective of the kingdom and its structures, one of the first things to mention is our God-given call to invite human beings to come to know Jesus as the Messiah of the kingdom… Two things are necessary in order to lead people to the Messiah and to invite them to confess him in word and deed. In the first place, they must come to know what the New Testament says about him… The second thing necessary as we lead people to the Messiah is for each of us to recall that the living Lord is actually present… Therefore every generation discovers fresh aspects about him and confesses him in a new manner…

Precisely because we have accepted the kingdom as the frame of reference and point of orientation for our missionary task, we must go on to claim that a call to conversion must necessarily follow our proclamation… Within the framework of the kingdom, conversion has been viewed properly as one of the inclusive goals of mission…

According to the New Testament, proclaiming the messianic message must always be accompanied by gathering, preserving and adding to the people of God… Missiology must always save a spot for ecclesiology and for the study of churches in their own environments…

Viewing our missionary task within the wider perspective of the kingdom will lead us to still another insight: participation in the fight against every vestige of evil plaguing [hu]mankind is an intrinsic part of our calling. According to the Bible the kingdom does not belong to the future. It is a present reality which, though not yet fully revealed, does nevertheless show definite signs of being underway…

It is gratifying to be able to note at the end of this study of the goal of the missio Dei and our concomitant mission that missiology is more and more coming to see the kingdom of God as the hub around which all of mission work revolves… The churches on all six continents need to be alert to changing needs and set their priorities accordingly. But even so they must present the entire message of the kingdom and not reduce it to just one point. We would be most inhuman if we should treat only the most acute and pressing needs of a people and deprive them of the full range of God’s promises by failing to mention the Messiah himself… At the same time, it would be a sign of sinful sloth and indolence if we were not to attempt in faith, together with the children of the kingdom throughout the world, to erect in the midst of the wide range of human burdens and evils signs and signals of that which is coming. He who prays, ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done’ is thereby called to aid in spreading the kingdom of God over the length and breadth of the earth.” (1978:197-204)

Verkuyl’s trinitarian, kingdom-oriented emphasis echoed Lesslie Newbigin’s view expressed in The Open Secret. “The Christian mission,” he affirmed, “is an acting out of a fundamental belief and, at the same time, a process in which this belief is being constantly reconsidered in the light of the experience of acting it out in every sector of human affairs and in dialogue with every other pattern of thought by which men and women seek to make sense of their lives. [This] fundamental belief is embodied in the affirmation that God has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Spirit. I shall therefore [look]… at the Christian mission in three ways — as the proclaiming of the kingdom of the Father, as sharing in the life of the Son, and as bearing the witness of the Spirit.” (1978:31)

Recreation in a Century: Seeking a Missiology of Transformation

How, then, may we go about constructing a trinitarian, Kingdom-based missiology of transformation? It seems to me that a first step would be to affirm that mission is not fundamentally ours: it does not belong to the church, it is not the property of mission agencies, it is not owned by the Christian NGO’s (non-governmental organizations). It is not for us to determine the content or parameters of our mission. Rather, following the emphasis first articulated by Vicedom, mission is most fundamentally God’s mission: it is missio Dei. This being true, it is essential that we construct a theological foundation on which to build the rest of the superstructure of a missiology of transformation. Such a foundation cannot be essentially anthropological or strategic, demographic or linguistic, political or economic, sociological, psychological or political. It is also not determined by the needs, demands or aspirations of our target audiences. The pilings driven into the soft earth of our various contexts, pilings that will support the structure of a missiology of transformation must be theological truths drawn from Scripture and from the Church’s understanding of God learned throughout twenty centuries of the Church’s experience and reflection of God. This is a tall order, and is far beyond the limits of this chapter. However, in the final section of this paper I want to describe in broad strokes, in the form of a set of summary statements, what I believe could be the content of a trinitarian, kingdom-based missiology of transformation. We begin, then, as does the Bible (e.g., Gen 1-3, Psalm 8, John 1, Eph. 1, Col. 1) with affirmations about God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

God the Father

Ø Christians care for creation not because it is “mother earth” (New Age paganism), nor because its care guarantees the survival of the human race (secular humanism), but rather because it is the creation of, and is cared for and supported by our heavenly Father in Jesus Christ (Psalm 8, John 1, Col 1, and Eph. 1). We know that there is a link between the salvation of humans and the salvation of the earth. For “the creation waits in eager expectation for the [children] of God to be revealed… in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:19-22). And we know that the status of creation is intimately connected with the relationship of humans with God. When humans rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden, creation itself fell. And now “we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time… (because) the creation waits in eager expectation for the (children) of God to be revealed” (Rom. 8:22,19). God is always, at all times, actively involved in the preservation and re-creation of all that is. Thus a missiology of transformation that participates in the missio Dei involves Christians in the care, preservation, and re-creation of all the created order.

Ø All humans are members of the same human family (We are all cousins, as it were.), created by the same God (Gen 1-3, John 1). And all human life is intrinsically valuable because, though fallen, it is created by God, in God’s image. Thus, as children of the Creator God, Christians are inherently against all that de-humanizes and destroys life. A missiology of transformation will involve a profound commitment to affirming all that values, cares for, and enhances human life. The God of the Bible loves all humans equally (the Tables of Nations of Gen 10 and Acts 2). “For God so loved the world” (Jn. 3:16) includes all humanity, including all those who are not yet Christian. So a missiology of transformation will seek by all legitimate means to call all peoples to a living faith relationship with their Creator in Jesus Christ by grace through faith granted us by the Holy Spirit.

Ø Because God the Creator of all has placed humans as stewards over God’s creation, a missiology of transformation is a missiology of stewardship. This stewardship is not merely the careful and wise use of what you and I have. Rather, it is the careful, purposeful and loving care of all that belongs to God. And all that we have belongs to God. Christians understand that it is their God-given responsibility and calling to be STEWARDS of all that God has created (Gen 1-3, Psalm 8, Hebrews 2:6-9)

Ø The God of the Bible is a compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in mercy (see, e.g., Ex 34:6; 2Chr 30:9; Ps 86:15) who would not have any to perish but that desires that everyone should come to repentance (II Peter 3:9). Thus we as Christians love all other human beings because God first loved them and gave his life for them — in that while we all were yet sinners, Christ died for us and for them (Rom. 5:8) Our motivation for mission derives from God’s creation, God’s love, God’s mission, and God’s desire. To be “children of God” (John 1:12) entails participating in God’s mission. We are, therefore eager to preach the gospel to all peoples because we are in fact “debtors to both Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and foolish” (Rom. 1:14). We participate in our Father’s calling all people to himself, for “anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile — the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” (Rom 10:11-13)

God the Son: Jesus the Christ

Ø Christians in conversation with people of other faiths confess that there is salvation in no one else: only through faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). A missiology of transformation will acknowledge the general revelation or prevenient grace that God has shone in the midst of other faiths, but will affirm as well that only in Jesus Christ is God’s revelation complete — and only in Jesus Christ is there salvation.

Ø The Incarnation shows us that salvation involves the creation of a completely new person, for “if anyone is in Christ [that person] is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (II Cor 5:17). Thus a missiology of transformation will be involved in the creation and re-creation of persons, seeking for them to become fully complete, fully human in Jesus Christ.

Ø Incarnational contextuality points us to receptor-oriented communication and contextualization. Jesus adapted his mission not only to humans, but also to specific humans: e.g., compare his mission with Nicodemus to his mission with the woman of Sychar (Jn. 3 and 4).

Ø The content of the Church’s mission is defined and circumscribed by Jesus’ mission. In Luke 4, Jesus describes and declares the essence of his mission. Drawing from the way the New Testament describes Jesus’ messianic mission, as the Body of Christ, the Church’s mission involves at least Koinonia, Kerygma, Diakonia, and Marturia by being for the world a community of Prophets, Priests, Kings, Healers, Liberators and Sages as the loving Community of the King (see C. Van Engen, God’s Missionary People, pp 87-132).

Ø A christological foundation of a missiology of transformation will also involve discipleship in two senses. First, our Great Commission calling is to make disciples — to call, invite, and gather those who will become disciples of Jesus Christ. Secondly, Christ’s disciples are to “offer their bodies as living sacrifices” with a view to being continually transformed in order to “test and approve what [is] God’s… good, pleasing, and perfect will” (Rom. 12:2). As disciples of Jesus we are by nature missionary disciples and “Christ’s love compels us to be ambassadors of reconciliation in a hurting, troubled and conflicted world (II Cor 5:11-21).

Ø Christ’s lordship is lordship over all humans. One day, “every knee will bow” to his lordship (Phil. 2). Our privilege, right, and duty are to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom that “Jesus is Lord” in every corner of the globe, among every people group, to every person. Christ’s lordship is also over the principalities and powers of this world, including global economic, political, social, and structural centers of power.

God the Holy Spirit

Ø The Holy Spirit transforms all of life — every aspect and all facets of one’s life. Thus a pneumatologically-grounded missiology of transformation will seek the creation and re-creation of the whole person, permeating all relationships and human structures relative to that person’s life.

Ø The Holy Spirit convicts “the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (Jn. 16:8). The Holy Spirit converts (transforms) persons, giving them grace and faith to believe in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the agent of transformation of persons from inside out. Conversion is not possible except by the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus a missiology of transformation can only happen through the work of the Holy Spirit. A missiology of transformation will seek, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to create and re-create the spiritual life of persons along with the physical, social, emotional and intellectual aspects of their being. A corollary of this is to recognize that a pneumatological missiology of transformation will by its very nature involve a variety of forms of spiritual warfare.

Ø A pneumatologically-grounded missiology of transformation entails the realization that only the Holy Spirit creates the Church — and only the Holy Spirit empowers and directs the Church’s mission (Harry Boer 1961). The Holy Spirit forms, transforms and re-forms the Church to be, know, do, serve, and relate in ways depicted by a host of biblical metaphors of the Church-in-mission like “salt of the earth,” “light of the world,” earthen vessels filled with the pearls of the Gospel, Body of Christ, a new humanity, ambassadors of reconciliation, the Family of God, among many others. The spirituality of Christians, of churches, and of mission agencies must be transformed through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and directed in mission to a lost and hurting world so loved by God.

Ø The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to the Church for mission in the world. And the fruits of the Holy Spirit are the Spirit’s gift to the world through the presence of the community of faith that embodies that fruit. Our world is in desperate need of the fruit of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22). And this fruit is based on people living out the Decalogue in love of God and neighbor. Such fruit, in the power of the Holy Spirit will radically transform — it will fundamentally alter — the realities in which we live today.

Ø Jesus Christ rules in the Kingdom through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We cannot have a kingdom missiology unless we have an equally broad, deep, high and wide pneumatological conception and praxis in mission.

Ø As the down payment of eternal life (Eph. 1:14), the Holy Spirit creates hope for the coming of the Kingdom in Jesus Christ. (see. C. Van Engen, “Faith, Love, and Hope: A Theology of Mission-on-the-Way,” in Mission on the Way,1996, 253-262). A pneumatologically-grounded missiology of transformation will eagerly await the final day when Christ returns and the final, full transformation will occur in a new heaven and a new earth. Then transformed Christians in a transformed reality will gather around the throne of the Lamb and sing, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” (Rev. 5:12 NIV).

The summary statements offered above are but an outline of what I believe is involved in articulating the theological underpinnings of a missiology of transformation. At the heart of this vision is a commitment to radical change.

Conclusion

During the 1970’s and 1980’s I served as a missionary in Tapachula, a tropical city on the Mexican border with Guatemala. There, a “transformer” was a small box into which we plugged our appliances to regulate the electricity coming to them through the house. That “transformer” would raise the voltage to acceptable levels and would cushion electrical surges. These devices were invaluable for the extended life of our electrical appliances.

In like fashion, global/local mission in the Twenty-first Century must be contextually and culturally appropriate to the needs, aspirations, worldviews and agendas of the persons in each context. In order to meet such demands, a Missiology of Transformation will need to be based on a trinitarian view of mission that is in continuity with what we have learned about mission during the past one hundred years and also in rather significant discontinuity with mission praxis as that has been carried out during the past one hundred years. Continuity and discontinuity. That would seem to be the essence of the concept of “TRANS–FORM–ATION.” A missiology of transformation involves TRANS– and –FORMATION, discontinuity and change coupled with continuity and re-creation.

TRANS– (discontinuity)

A missiology of transformation calls for movement, for metamorphosis, for change, for conversion, for a change of heart. Without a change of heart, a change of self, of being, nothing will change. Merely a change of religious affiliation, merely an individual, vertical conversion will not change the persons, structures, systems and cultures of this world. To be believable the Church and Christians must be good for something — they must be able to demonstrate to the people of their contexts and nations that they have something concrete, measurable, visible, positive, constructive and helpful to offer their contexts and nations. This calls for radical conversion as much of the Church and of Christians to their mission of being Christ’s transforming presence in the world — just as much as conversion of non-Christians to faith in Jesus Christ.

–FORMATION (continuity)

A missiology of transformation also calls for incarnational contextuality, for wrestling with the relationship of Gospel and culture in thousands of different contexts worldwide. This transformation is not merely a change of religious affiliation, not merely a matter of new church membership. This is not merely civilization or education, or a change of ethical behavior; it is not merely socio-economic and political betterment. Rather, a missiology of transformation entails the new formation, the re-creation of whole persons — of all and every aspect of their lives, each in their particular context in terms of knowing, being, doing, serving, and relating to one other: It has simultaneously personal, social, structural and national implications. It involves reconciliation with God, self, creation, others, and the socio-cultural structures. (Cf. I Cor 5; see also C. Van Engen’s definition of mission in footnote 14 above.)

John ends his gospel by saying, “Jesus did many other miraculous signs which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:30-31). That you may have life. Like a sponge is permeated with water, so our mission is to offer new life to the women and men of our world of the Twenty-First Century in which all of their life, every aspect of life, all arenas of life are permeated with the presence of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the rich and powerful of this world need to be transformed, they need to be converted, just as much as the poor and the weak.

This is a time of massive social change in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America — as well as the cities of Western Europe, Australia, and North America. And the Church of Jesus Christ is there to proclaim the Gospel and contribute to the building of new nations and the re-building of old ones. The Church of Jesus Christ stands for love, joy, peace, reconciliation and the value of human life.

Our mission is a mission of transformation. I think Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) had it right — but, because of his Christendom perspective, he was incomplete in his view of the goal of the God’s mission. Voetius stated that the goal of mission is three-fold: the conversion of people to Jesus Christ, the planting and development of the church, and the glory of God. (J.H. Bavinck 1977:155; D. Bosch 1980:126-127; J. Verkuyl 1978:21; Moreau, Netland, Van Engen, edits., 2000:1002).

I believe that in the Twenty-first Century we must add a fourth goal, inserted between “planting and development of the church” and “the glory of God,” as seen below. We know that today about one quarter of the earth’s population in some fashion profess their faith in Jesus Christ. Those Christians are spread now around the globe in every nation on earth, speak more languages and have more ease of communication and travel than ever before in the history of the Church. For the first time in human history the Church of Jesus Christ can present the Gospel in an understandable form to every human being on the face of the planet. But that also means that the Church also has the opportunity, duty and calling to be a transforming presence in every corner of the globe. Thus, I believe we should add a fourth goal of mission, as follows.

:: the conversion of people to Jesus Christ,

:: the planting and development of the church,

:: the TRANSFORMATION of the Church and, through the Church’s ministries, the transformation of the contexts and nations in which the churches are to be found, and

:: the glory of God.

Orlando Costas was right when he affirmed that the Church can only be a penultimate goal of mission, not the final goal. Socio-economic and political change is also merely a penultimate goal of mission. A trinitarian, kingdom-oriented missiology of transformation will hold to only one goal: the glory of God (see, e.g., Eph 1:6, 12, 14). One day we will all stand together with all those from every tribe, family and nation who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. We will all stand around the throne of the Lamb and sing, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain…” (Rev. 5:12).

Our mission is to participate in Jesus’ mission whose mission it was to do God’s mission in the power of the Holy Spirit: no more, no less. This is a mission of radical transformation — a mission of metamorphosis. What shape must this take in the interim between the “already” and the “not yet” of the coming of the Kingdom of God? I believe Lesslie Newbigin captured it well when he challenged us all to give concrete presence, life and expression to our mission (our mission-as-transformation) in and through the life of local congregations spread around the globe. He said it this way.

“The primary reality of which we have to take account in seeking for a Christian impact on public life is the Christian congregation… The only hermeneutic of the gospel is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it… This community will have, I think, the following six characteristics:

· It will be a community of praise.

· It will be a community of truth.

· It will be a community that does not live for itself.

· It will be a community… sustained in the exercise of the priesthood in the world.

· It will be a community of mutual responsibility.

· It will be a community of hope.” (Lesslie Newbigin 1989:222-233).

Whether it is a toy in the hands of my son, Andrew, a large container hanging from a pole, or a small electrical box in southern Mexico, the three images tell us one thing: they were meant to be always the same yet always changing into something different. So it is with our mission in this new century. Our mission is to proclaim in word and deed always the same Gospel that is always taking on new forms — it is always transformed and always transforming.

My thesis is that an evangelical missiology of transformation

(1) builds on classical concepts of mission developed over the last 100 years;

(2) overcomes the dichotomies between evangelism and social action that arose 50 years ago; and

(3) re-creates itself in a trinitarian praxis of mission appropriate to the global/local challenges, and opportunities of church and world in this new century.

Works Cited

Arias, Mortimer

1980    Venga tu Reino: La memoria subversiva de Jesús. México: Casa Unida — subsequently published in English as Announcing the Reign of God: Evangelization and the Subversive Memory of Jesus. Phil.: Fortress, 1984.

1998    Anunciando el Reino de Dios, Evangelización integral desde Ia memoria de Jesús. San José, Costa Rica: Visión Mundial.

2003    El Ultimo Mandato, Ia Gran Comisión, Relectura desde América Latina. Bogotá: Visión Mundial.

Bassham, Roger

1979    Mission Theology 1948-1975: Years of Worldwide Creative Tension—Ecumenical, Evangelical and Roman Catholic. So. Pas.: WCL.

Bavinck, J.H.

1977    An Introduction to the Science of Missions. N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Blauw, Johannes

1974    The Missionary Nature of the Church. G.R.: Eerdmans; London: Lutterworth.

Boer, Harry

1961    Pentecost and Missions. G.R.: Eerdmans.

Bosch, David

1980    Witness to the World The Christian Mission in Theological Perspective. Atlanta: John Knox.

1991    Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Carpenter, Joel A. and Wilbert R. Shenk, edit

1990    Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880-1980 G.R.: Eerdmans.

Carriker, Timoteo

1992    Missão Integral: Uma teologia biblica. São Paulo: Sepal.

Cullmann, Oscar

1951    Christ and Time. London: SCM; Phil.: Westminster.

Daneel, Inus, Charles Van Engen and Hendrik Vroom, edits

2003    Fullness of Life for All: Challenges for Mission in Early 21st Century. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Drucker, Peter

1993    Post-Capitalist Society. N.Y.:HarperCollins.

Escobar, Samuel

1998    De Ia Misión a Ia Teologia. Buenos Aires: Kairos.

1999    Tiempo de Misión: America Latina y Ia misión cristiana hoy. Guatemala: Semilla.

2002    Changing Tides: Latin America and World Mission Today. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Gnanakan, Ken R.

1989    Kingdom Concerns: A Biblical Exploration Towards a Theology of Mission. Bangalore: Theological Book Trust. This was expanded and reprinted in 1993.

Gnanakan, Ken R., edit

1992    Salvation: Some Asian Perspectives. Bangalore: Theological Book Trust.

Goodall, Norman, edit

1953    Mission Under the Cross. London: Edinburgh House and N.Y.: Friendship. Harr, Wilbur C., edit.

1962    Frontiers of the Christian World Mission Since 1938. N.Y.: Harper.

Henry, Carl

1947    The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. G.R.: Eerdmans.

Hoekendijk, Johannes C.

1966    The Church Inside Out. Phil.: Westminster.

International Missionary Council

1938    The World Mission of the Church. London: IMC.

1952    The Missionary Obligation of the Church. London: Edinburgh House.

Jongeneel, Jan

1997    Philosophy, Science, and Theology of Mission in the 19th and 20th Centuries: A Missiological Encyclopedia Part II: Missionary Theology. N.Y.: Peter Lang.

Jongeneel, Jan A. B. and Jan M. van Engelen

1995    “Contemporary Currents in Missiology,” in F.J. Verstraelen et al, 1995, 438-457.

Kirk, Andrew

1999    What is Mission: Theological Explorations. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Ladd, George E.

1974    The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. G.R.: Eerdmans.

Lindsell, Harold

1962    “Faith Missions since 1938” in Wilbur C. Harr, edit.: 189-230.

Mackay, John A.

1963    The Latin American Church and the Ecumenical Movement. N.Y.: NCC.

Mbiti, John S.

2003    “Dialogue Between EATWOT and Western Theologians: A Comment on the 6th EATWOT Conference,” in Inus Daneel, Charles Van Engen and Hendrik Vroom, edits. 2003, 91-104.

McGavran, Donald

1970    Understanding Church Growth. G.R.: Eerdmans.

1977    The Conciliar-Evangelical Debate: The Crucial Documents, 1964-1976. So. Pas.: WCL.

McIntosh, John A.

2000    “Missio Dei,” in A. Scott Moreau, Harold Netland and Charles Van Engen, edits. 631-633

Moreau, Scott, Harold Netland and Charles Van Engen, edits

2000    Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. G.R.: Baker.

Neill, Stephen

1959    Creative Tension. London: Edinburgh House.

1984    “How My Mind has Changed about Mission,” 3-part video series taped at the Overseas Ministries Study Center, Atlanta: Southern Baptist Convention.

Nefly, Stephen, Gerald H. Anderson and John Goodwin, edits

1971    Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission. Nashville: Abingdon.

Newbigin, Lesslie

1978    The Open Secret. G.R.: Eerdmans.

1989    The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. G.R., Eerdmans.

Niles, D.T.

1962    Upon the Herat: The Misión of God and the Missionary Enterprises of the Churches. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.

Orchard, Ronald K., edit

1964    Witness in Six Continents. London:Edinburgh.

Padilla, René

1985    Mission between the Times: Essays on the Kingdom. G.R.: Eerdmans — published in Spanish as Misión Integral: Ensayos Sobre el Reino y Ia Iglesia. G.R.: Nueva Creación, 1986.

Ridderbos, Herman     

1962    The Coming of the Kingdom. Phil.: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Rosin, H.H.

1972    Missio Dei: An Examination of the Origin, Contents and Function of the Term in Protestant Missiological Discussion. Leiden: InterUniversity Institute for Missiological and Ecumenical Research.

Scherer, James

1987    Gospel, Church, & Kingdom: Comparative Studies in World Misión Theology. Minn.: Augsburg.

1993    “Church, Kingdom and Missio Dei: Lutheran and Orthodox Correctives to Recent Ecumenical Mission Theology” in Charles Van Engen et al, edits. 1993, 82-88.

Van Dusen, Henry

1961    One Great Ground of Hope: Christian Missions and Christian Unity. Phil.: Westminster.

Van Engen, Charles

1981    The Growth of the True Church: An Analysis of the Ecclesiology of Church Growth Theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

1990    “A Broadening Vision: Forty Years of Evangelical Theology of Mission, 1946-1986” in Joel Carpenter and Wilbert Shenk, edits. 1990: 203-234.

1991    God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church. G.R.: Baker.

1996    Mission on the Way: Issues in Mission Theology. G. R.: Baker.

2000    “Working Together Theologically in the New Millennium: Opportunities and Challenges,” in Gary Corwin and Kenneth Mulholland, edits. Working Together With God to Shape the New Millennium. Pasadena: WCL, 82-122.

2001    “Toward a Theology of Mission Partnerships,” Missiology, XXIX: 1 January, 2001, 11-44.

Van Engen, Charles, Dean Gilliland and Paul Pierson, edits

1993    The Good News of the Kingdom: Mission Theology for the Third Millennium. N.Y.: Orbis.

Verkuyl, Johannes

1978    Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction. G.R.: Eerdmans.

Verstraelen, F.J., A. Camps, L.A. Hoedemaker, and M.R. Spindler

1995    Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction, Texts and Contexts of Global Christianity. G.R.: Eerdmans; English translation of Oecumenische Inleiding in de Missiologie: Teksten en Konteksten van het Wereld-Christendom. Kampen: Kok, 1988.

Vicedom, Georg

1965    The Mission of God: An Introduction to a Theology of Mission. St. Louis: Concordia.

Wagner, C. Peter

1989    “Donald McGavran: A Tribute to the Founder,” in: C. Peter Wagner, edit. 1989, 16-18.

1989    Church Growth: State of the Art. Wheaton: Tyndale.

Williams, Colin

1963    Where in the World. N.Y.: NCCC.

1964    What in the World. N.Y.: NCCC.

World Council of Churches

1968    The Church for Others and the Church for the World. Geneva: WCC.

Endnotes

[1] I believe one of the greatest obstacles to world evangelization today is the persistent hang-over of the “3-self formula.” Holding too tightly to that introverted and institutionally-ossified formula as the goal of missions activities has tended to created churches all over the world that exhibit a fourth “self:” selfish.

[2] For a summary treatment of this view, see C. Van Engen: 2000 and C. Van Engen: 2001.

[3] This development began with the 1938 meeting of the International Missionary Council in Tambaram, India (International Missionary Council 1938). See C. Van Engen 1996:148-149.

[4] For a look at some of the developments in this way of thinking, see C. Van Engen 1996:145-158.

[5] For a summary treatment of these developments in Evangelical Protestant mission theology, see C. Van Engen: 1990.

[6] See, e.g., Donald McGavran 1977.

[7] It is hard to underestimate the impact that the move to integrate the IMC into the WCC at the New Delhi conference of the IMC in 1961 had on Evangelical mission theology, see C. Van Engen: 1996, 132-133, particularly footnotes 19-22 and 1996:150, footnote 14.

[8] See, e.g., John A. Mackay 1963:13; J.C. Hoekendijk 1966:108 and C. Van Engen 1981:382; C. Van Engen 1996:150.

[9] Cf. David Bosch 1980:167.

[10] See, e.g., H.H. Rosin, “Missio Dei: An Examination of the Origin, Content and Function of the Term in Protestant Missiological Discussion;” 1972; James Scherer 1987: 93-125; James Scherer, “Church, Kingdom, and Missio Dei: Lutheran and Orthodox Correctives to Recent Ecumenical Mission Theology 1993: 82-88”; Johannes Verkuyl: 1978: 328-331; 197-204; David Bosch 1980: 242-248; 1991: 389-393; C. Van Engen 1981:277-279, 305-323; 1991: 108; 1996: 150-153; Andrew Kirk 1999: 229; Jan Jongeneel and Jan van Engelen 1995: 447-448; Jan Jongeneel 1997: 59-61; D.T. Niles 1962; George Vicedom “Missio Dei” in Stephen Neill, Gerald H. Anderson and John Goodwin, edits. 1971: 387; John McIntosh, “Missio Dei” in Moreau, Netland and Van Engen, edits. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, 2000, 631-633; Lesslie Newbigin The Open Secret 1978: 20-31: Roger Bassham 1979: 67-71.)

[11] Stephen Neill 1959: 81; quoted by Johannes Blauw 1962:109.

[12] The first major publication of the Latin American Theological Fraternity (LATF) was entitled, El Reino de Dios y América Latina (The Kingdom of God and Latin America). Since then the LATF has consistently emphasized what Padilla and others have called “integral mission.” See, e.g., Orlando Costas 1974; 1982; Mortimer Arias 1980, 1984, 1998, 2003; René Padilla 1986; Samuel Escobar 1998; 1999; 2002; Timothy Carriker 1992; and Valdir Steuernagel 1991, 1992

[13] Cf., e.g., John Mbiti 2003.                                        

[14] One way that I have attempted to do this is to borrow from Stephen Neill’s definition of mission “the intentional crossing of barriers from Church to non-church in word and deed for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel” (Neill: 1984 video). I define mission as follows, “God’s mission works primarily through the People of God intentionally crossing barriers from Church to non-church and faith to non-faith, to proclaim by word and deed the coming of the Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ through the Church’s participation in God’s mission of reconciling people to God, to themselves, to each other, and to the world and gathering them into the Church through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit with a view to the transformation of the world as a sign of the coming of the Kingdom in Jesus Christ.”

[15] Interestingly, all the English language translations I checked translated this with “be transformed.” The New English translated the verse as, “Adapt yourselves no longer to the pattern of this present world, but let your minds be remade and your whole nature thus transformed. Then you will be able to discern the will of God, and to know what is good, acceptable and perfect.”

Fonte: http://www.globalmissiology.org/english/archive/vanengen_missiology_transformation_4_2005.html